John L. May I call you JL? It's a brotherly thing because I'm a John too and oft go by JC.
I like this a lot. I agree with both assertions absolutely. So there. JC On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:42 PM, T-REXX Techs, Inc. < [email protected]> wrote: > "What may or may not lie beyond experience..." If you qualify experience > as > "physical experience", then a level of experience beyond that makes perfect > sense. > > I can think of two self-imposed limitations of the MOQ: > 1. Its deliberate avoidance of theistic language constrains it. How > can you talk about absolute reality without using the language of Absolute > Reality? > 2. It remains open-ended. To the extent that open-endedness allows it > to be extended, expanded, enhanced, and in general, used in many ways to > make living, working, and thinking better, that's not a limitation. I thin > that's what Dr, Pirsig intended. But if "open-ended" is taken to mean "end > of story; that's all there is", then that's self-imposed limitation. > > There you go, Pilgrims. Jump on it and have fun with it. > > Fraternally, > > > John L. McConnell > Office: 407-859-2637 > Cell: 321-438-6301 > Home: 407-857-2004 > Email: [email protected] > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > [email protected] > Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 3:06 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Moq_Discuss Digest, Vol 98, Issue 18 > > Send Moq_Discuss mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Moq_Discuss digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: George Steiner interview (Andre) > 2. Re: 42 (ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR) > 3. Re: 42 (ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR) > 4. Re: 42 (John Carl) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:20:36 +0100 > From: Andre <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] George Steiner interview > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > David Morey said: > 'Thanks Dave that is great,? George's Grammars of Creation is a great > book about transcendence if you fancy it,? all about the need to think > about what may or may not lie beyond experience and how important this > has been in human culture,...' > > Andre: > Lie 'beyond' experience? You sound like Marsha who tried to find out > what lay 'beyond' the MoQ. And you call that 'An interesting work that > could, given an open mind,? help develop the MOQ beyond some of its > self-imposed limitations as I see it'. > > It would appear, as you phrase it, that the MoQ has 'self-imposed > limitations' and that there must be something lying beyond it. > > Which limitations of the MoQ? are you thinking of David? And what could > be lying 'beyond' the MoQ? > > Within this context let's look at what Phaedrus suggests in ZMM: > 'All the time we are aware of millions of things around us...We could > not possibly conscious of these things and remember all of them because > our mind would be so full of useless details we would be unable to > think. From all this awareness we must select, and what we select and > call consciousness is never the same as awareness because the process > mutates it. We take a handful of sand from the endless landscape of > awareness around us and call that handful of sand the world'.(ZMM p75) > > In LILA the terms have changed but my take on the last line from ZMM and > transposing that into MoQ terms is: We take a handful of sand (static > patterns of value)from the endless landscape of awareness (Quality) and > call that handful of sand the world (the MoQ). In other words awareness > is Quality and what we call consciousness are the static patterns of > value derived from that Quality. > > That 'deriving from'...that 'abstracting from'...is the Quality event. > It is the /cause /of consciousness...the subjects and objects we > deduce...the static patterns of value. The static patterns of value are > 'in' this awareness as much as that the MoQ is the ink on the page > called Quality. Quality has the MoQ. Awareness has consciousness. And, > we can understand Quality, call it non-duality to also 'have' SOM > (duality). It can simply 'contain' it without any contradiction, to be > used whenever it is pragmatically useful to do so. > > It seems that this is quite consistent with the MoQ as well as all the > perennial philosophy books I have read. > > Anyway, this is my take on it. If there are any serious issues with this > I'd like to hear them. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 11:43:47 -0500 (EST) > From: ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> > To: moq discuss <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [MD] 42 > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > [John] > I really like those animated talk things. They seem to capture our > attention in a broad way. > > [Arlo] > They are very well done, for sure. Here's another one I see come up now and > again: EPIC 2020 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gU3FjxY2uQ) > > Its a recast of an older video (EPIC 2014, > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUHBPuHS-7s), which was primarily about the > shifting information 'mediascape', using the same 'future voice' to > describe > educational changes that occur between now and 2020. However, if you watch > them both back-to-back, you'll see that the original one (2014) wasn't > presenting a utopic future per se, but asked critical questions about where > these changes took (take) us, and what unintentional consequences may be. > The education one (2020) is nearly entirely utopic, condemning the present > state of education and presenting an future-perfect scenario where online, > open, automated (AI), degree-less, tuition-less, 'education' functions so > well that only 'misguided' and 'misinformed' people do not turn to > intelligent online programs for all their informational, educational needs. > > "Ph?drus remembered a line from Thoreau: "You never gain something but that > you lose something."" (ZMM) > > [John] > And I think that's a good thing because you always value the teaching most > that you seek out rather than have shoved down your throat whether you're > in > a receptive mood or not. > > [Arlo] > If I'm understanding, this is mostly a comment on public/compulsory (K-12) > education? Post-secondary education, whether technical, academic, > vocational > or otherwise is voluntary, so the act of self-registering is a form of > seeking out 'information/learning'. Is this, then, a call for eliminating > compulsory education all together? Or is it more a call for reform to the > way curricula are adhered to (the factory model of ken robinson's video)? > > [John] > Also I realize that this style isn't appropriate for every subject but it > seems to me that for the art of programming - and the culture of > programmers- it's uniquely appropriate. > > [Arlo] > How do you mean? I see this simplified to something like "programmers > should > not be forced to learn things (about programming?) they don't value"? Would > you say that one of the goals for the instructor is to demonstrate 'why' > something is valuable that not all students may initially understand? Or is > this, too, some form of educational-violence? > > [John] > Again, programming is different. If you're good at it you can get a good > job. It doesn't matter if you have a degree or are self taught. > > [Arlo] > How would a prospective employer know you're good at it? Believe me, I do > not think 'degrees' in and of themselves prove a person can do anything > (one > of the more recent 'techno' reforms is digital badging, an idea built off > of > older competency-based models of education), but if we eliminate > degrees/grades, how do you suggest our skill(s) be packaged so that an > employer can see what we can do? Portfolios try to address this, do you > think these are better? What about certifications? I see computer jobs all > the time that advertised for people with so-and-so certification. Would > that > go out with degrees? > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 12:29:22 -0500 (EST) > From: ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> > To: moq discuss <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [MD] 42 > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > [Dan] > I have a a few questions. Does academic schooling tend to breed out > creativity in students? > > [Arlo] > This is (as I see it) actually two separate questions. (1) Does the current > model of education in practice in most schools breed out creativity in > students? and (2) Does academic schooling 'ipso facto' breed out creativity > in students? > > That is, is 'schooling' itself the issue, or is it the 'way we school'? > IMHO, the answer to the first is most assuredly "yes", and study after > study > shows this to be case. This is starting to change, mostly because > post-industrial economies require original/creative thinking whereas > industrial economies (on which our current educational model still follows) > not only de-emphasized creativity and critical thinking but deliberately > and > actively moved to squelch them. > > My answer to the second is "no", schooling (or learning, or instruction, or > education) is not anti-creativity. Bourdieu has suggested that all forms of > 'enculturation' were a form of symbolic violence. But, of course, > enculturation was also necessary for agency. The extreme idea of a lone > person who matures in isolation on a desert island may not have any forms > of > symbolic violence exerted against her/him, but will have very little agency > to act in the world. > > You give a child a toy car, you've just coerced them (enculturated them) > into seeing the world a certain way. > > The key to this (again, IMHO) is the shift Pirsig made (as an instructor). > He didn't abolish the teaching of rhetorical 'structure' (outlines, > authoritative references, footnotes, etc.) but taught these structures as > ways of increasing learner agency in their writing. In this light, what we > need is not to abolish the teaching of structure, but to contain that in a > larger system where these structures can be evaluated as to how good they > serve an intended purpose. > > [Dan] > Arlo's talk of accessing the student's development and moving it along > seems > to indicate there are pre-designated parameters at work. Are these > parameters based upon the individual students or are they cookie-cutter > style textbook learning exercises designed to mimic rather than open new > vistas? > > [Arlo] > Of course there are 'pre-designated' parameters, education presupposes that > at point A there is something a person can not do, you have the educational > intervention, and then at point B they can do it. The instructor should > know > what is necessary to make this transition and help the student take the > steps they need to bridge this gap. A skilled guitar instructor will see > what you can do, where you struggle, and keep your activities oriented to > keep challenging you, build upon what you know, and offer strategies for > overcoming deficiencies. > > Of course I'm not suggesting a "cookie-cutter style", that is exactly the > opposite of why Vygotsky described the ZPD. I've actually used Pirsig's > example of the student writing about the brick as an example of a ZPD > intervention. Pirsig (the 'expert') was able to determine where the student > (the 'novice') was, and suggest specific opportunities for her to grow > (between stagnating and failing). He was able to help her find that > specific > point where she had the prior knowledge but could extend her knowledge into > doing something she previously could not do. > > [Dan] > Can creativity be taught? Or is the foundation of learning rooted in a kind > of monkey-see monkey-do? > > [Arlo] > This question presupposes creativity is either innate or learned. I tend to > see it interwoven between these two 'poles'. Maybe something like the > capacity for creativity is innate, but the ability to create is learned. > And, I'd argue that this ability to create (agency) is inherently tied to > the appropriation of structure (whether learned formally or informally, > structured education or trial-and-error learning). > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 11:27:54 -0800 > From: John Carl <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [MD] 42 > Message-ID: > < > cakpdw3mdjjcedmsd6vtcojankjr6koj_3oib_gbqaglvgb6...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Arlo, > > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:43 AM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > [John] > > I really like those animated talk things. They seem to capture our > > attention in a broad way. > > > > [Arlo] > > They are very well done, for sure. Here's another one I see come up now > > and again: EPIC 2020 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gU3FjxY2uQ) > > > > Its a recast of an older video (EPIC 2014, > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUHBPuHS-7s), which was primarily about > > the shifting information 'mediascape', using the same 'future voice' to > > describe educational changes that occur between now and 2020. However, if > > you watch them both back-to-back, you'll see that the original one (2014) > > wasn't presenting a utopic future per se, but asked critical questions > > about where these changes took (take) us, and what unintentional > > consequences may be. > > > > J: Yes I was getting tired and in a hurry but I should have said for Point > 3: The average child now experiences fast-paced stimuli on an almost > constant basis like never before. > > That's a big issue for the future. > > > A: > > The education one (2020) is nearly entirely utopic, condemning the present > > state of education and presenting an future-perfect scenario where > online, > > open, automated (AI), degree-less, tuition-less, 'education' functions so > > well that only 'misguided' and 'misinformed' people do not turn to > > intelligent online programs for all their informational, educational > needs. > > > > > J: I believe more than half the school's function is to socialize humans. > It's already being lost to a virtual world, what happens when you eliminate > all contact with the outside world? Shivers. > > > > > "Ph?drus remembered a line from Thoreau: "You never gain something but > > that you lose something."" (ZMM) > > > > [John] > > And I think that's a good thing because you always value the teaching > most > > that you seek out rather than have shoved down your throat whether you're > > in a receptive mood or not. > > > > [Arlo] > > If I'm understanding, this is mostly a comment on public/compulsory > (K-12) > > education? Post-secondary education, whether technical, academic, > > vocational or otherwise is voluntary, so the act of self-registering is a > > form of seeking out 'information/learning'. Is this, then, a call for > > eliminating compulsory education all together? Or is it more a call for > > reform to the way curricula are adhered to (the factory model of ken > > robinson's video)? > > > > J: I'm mostly focused on the k-12 area, yes. And it's not the compulsory > I despise, it's the compulsory along very narrow lines. I'm for > decentralizing the education system through vouchers, remeber? :) > > > > > > > [John] > > Also I realize that this style isn't appropriate for every subject but it > > seems to me that for the art of programming - and the culture of > > programmers- it's uniquely appropriate. > > > > [Arlo] > > How do you mean? I see this simplified to something like "programmers > > should not be forced to learn things (about programming?) they don't > > value"? Would you say that one of the goals for the instructor is to > > demonstrate 'why' something is valuable that not all students may > initially > > understand? Or is this, too, some form of educational-violence? > > > > > J: For one thing, I think these kids are often the smarter ones. And the > smarter kids do better at a go-at-your-own pace. I think many times they > are held back and bored by the system which HAS to be one-size-fits-all and > cater to the lower common denominator. I'm saying the same pack instinct > that puts nerds together and outcast from most other people at every > school, is a good argument for creating a school tailored to the tastes and > needs of nerds. > > > > > > [John] > > Again, programming is different. If you're good at it you can get a good > > job. It doesn't matter if you have a degree or are self taught. > > > > [Arlo] > > How would a prospective employer know you're good at it? > > > J: That's an easy one. Have one good coder do the interview and ask some > questions. And usually a programmer is hired on the basis of the work he's > already done. His code IS his resume. > > > > Believe me, I do not think 'degrees' in and of themselves prove a person > > can do anything (one of the more recent 'techno' reforms is digital > > badging, an idea built off of older competency-based models of > education), > > but if we eliminate degrees/grades, how do you suggest our skill(s) be > > packaged so that an employer can see what we can do? Portfolios try to > > address this, do you think these are better? What about certifications? I > > see computer jobs all the time that advertised for people with so-and-so > > certification. Would that go out with degrees? > > > > As I said, I don't think all degrees are useless. I just think there are > some people who don't need all that and could use a place of learning > without the academic distractions of record keeping and grades. But I went > and took college courses without paying attention to what grades I got or > whether I got a degree. I made good money in construction (once upon a > time... sob ) and didn't need an education for professional reasons but > personal ones. > > John > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Moq_Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > > > End of Moq_Discuss Digest, Vol 98, Issue 18 > ******************************************* > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
